Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday April 23, 2009 @01:04PM
from the scuttle-the-ship dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "NPR reports that owners of ships that ply the dangerous waters near Somalia are looking at options to repel pirates including slippery foam, lasers, electric fences, water cannons and high-intensity sound — almost anything except guns. One defense is the Force 80 squirt gun with a 3-inch nozzle that can send 1,400 gallons a minute 100 yards in any direction. 'It is a tremendous force of water that will knock over anything in its path and will also flood a pirate's ship very quickly,' says Roger Barrett James of the the Swedish company Unifire. Next is the Mobility Denial System, a slippery nontoxic foam that can be sprayed on just about any surface making it impossible to walk or climb even with the aid of a harness. The idea would be to spray the pirate's vessel as it approached, or to coat ropes, ladders, steps and the hull of the ship that's under attack. The Long Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD, a high-powered directional loudspeaker allows a ship to hail an approaching vessel more than a mile away. 'Knowing that they've lost the element of surprise is half the battle,' says Robert Putnam of American Technology Corp. The LRAD has another feature — a piercing "deterrent tone" that sounds a bit like a smoke detector alarm with enough intensity to cause extreme pain and even permanent hearing loss for anyone directly in the beam that comes from the device. But Capt. John Konrad, who blogs for the Web site Gcaptain.com, says no anti-pirate device is perfect. 'The best case scenario is that you find these vessels early enough that you can get a Navy ship detached to your location and let them handle the situation.'"

"We're getting boarded... must not have sprayed the pirate repellent last night..."

The best pirate repellent is two squads of armed marines. Just have the ships pick them up in the port before the gulf of Aden... and drop them off in the port after, where they can board the ship going the other way.

Much cheaper than flooding the area with warships... and more effective to boot.

Why bother with all the new 'tech' that is probably expensive, etc. And just use something known to work....a simple fucking gun?!?!?

Geez, if this were my ship, I know I'd be packing some serious heat. A boat starts coming towards me....>bang
I do that for my home if an intruder comes in, why not on the high seas where you KNOW a threat like this is not un-common??

This really has to be the cheapest, most effective method - so there must be some, likely political, reason that it's not being used. Much of the issue with arming crew members seems to revolve around 1) training and 2) what to do with the weapons in whatever random port the ship ends up at where weapons aren't welcome.

Picking up then dropping off paid mercs or active duty soldiers would go around that problem. But it seems like paying ransom is the current preferred action.

The real lesson is that pussies get raped. First ship gets hijacked out of the blue. Owner pays several millions to get it back. Pirates buy huge amounts of guns and bling-bling. Pirates are heavily armed and broke, hijacking the next vessel. Then the pirates' neighbors see all that bling and now try to do the same.

Rinse, repeat and then you have an economy of blackmail, robbery, extortion. Earning millions by simply hijacking a passing ship is sure as more profitable than planting wheat in soil as hard as concrete, so they're doing it. Now that they've tasted it AND have more weapons than they'd ever need, you cannot stop them without killing at least half of 'em.

This really has to be the cheapest, most effective method - so there must be some, likely political, reason that it's not being used. Much of the issue with arming crew members seems to revolve around 1) training and 2) what to do with the weapons in whatever random port the ship ends up at where weapons aren't welcome.

International Maritime treaties forbid merchant ships from army themselves during peacetime.

If ships armed themselves, then they waive the "right of innocent passage" and when they are out of international waters, then they might run into problem with the local authorities.

They only waive this right if they act in ways that are "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the country in whose territorial waters they are sailing. One specific example from one of the articles you linked to is "weapons practice", but not "weapons possession". Even submarines, which are well armed, don't need to give up their weapons in territorial waters, they only need to sail on the surface under colors.

Yes, if a merchant vessel came into US waters with guns blazing, I think there would be concern. If, however, they entered with "guns stowed and locked", there is no danger to the security of the US. In Somali waters, there would be no danger to Somali 'good order', unless Somalia decided that successful piracy was part of their 'good order', and then they'd run afoul of international law. It is a reasonable expectation that merchant vessels should receive protection from piracy while they are in territorial waters from the owner of those waters.

Even so, the pirates operate in international waters, IIRC.

How many people read the headline and wondered why a Seattle baseball team was trying to create something to keep Pittsburgh players away?

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

You may wonder how armed Naval ships can have and use weapons, but that is because they are not merchant ships and are ruled by other naval treaties in respect to international law.

If this law was changed, you have to keep in mind that would allow Chinese and Russian merchant vessels to be armed while in US ports so it is a very sticky situation.

The passage you quoted does not prevent seaman from having weapons, merely from doing anything with them within territorial waters. So just keep them locked up when in territorial waters. Once you're outside territorial waters (or in the territorial waters of a state which doesn't respect innocent passage anyway), break 'em out.

There's probably other treaties getting in the way, but that isn't one of them.

Although I certainly do not claim to be an expert in maritime law, commercial ships have helicopters take off from and land on them all the time, which would seem to violate those statutes just as blatantly as adding a few.50 machineguns would.

No. It doesn't. It does, however, explain why it happens. A person grows up in abject poverty, and thanks to mass media's portrayal of the western world, he realizes just how much poverty he's got to deal with. He sees that there's not really anything that separates him from people in wealthier parts of the world other than what's effectively birth right. He begins to resent that

He sees that there's not really anything that separates him from people in wealthier parts of the world other than what's effectively birth right. He begins to resent that relative wealth, and he begins to develop a sense of entitlement. Why shouldn't he have the same wealth that the rich have?

Having actually lived in Ethiopia for a month, and having talked to dozens of people there, I assure you this isn't the case.

This view you describe, which seems to be based in cynicism and class envy, simply doesn't exist all over the world. I can't speak for Somalia, but in their neighbor Ethiopia, the attitude is largely one of overwhelming generosity despite having close to nothing.

I talked to one guy who said that he had a brother who lived in America, but he never even cared to visit. He loved his life in Ethiopia. The attitude that everyone in the third world resents everyone in the first world and is willing to set aside their morals to attain material wealth is ignorant and potentially racist.

Certainly every society has their criminals. But poverty is not itself a spawning pool for criminal behavior. Go ahead and witness children who eat about 10 bites of food per day offer you some of theirs, and come back and post again.

He sees that there's not really anything that separates him from people in wealthier parts of the world other than what's effectively birth right.

... because I have, and I can tell you most people I've met in the third world see their own nations as the place where success and material wealth are a birthright, and they see the US as the one place where success is actually accessible to anyone (even immigrants).

Having actually lived in Ethiopia for a month, and having talked to dozens of people there, I assure you this isn't the case.
Having visited several other third world countries, including Honduras, Belize and Venezuela, I also almost no stealing. When I did see stealing, it was people who actually had comparatively high wealth, like having a beat up old pickup when 95% of families don't have a car.
Similarly, in the U.S., you rarely see people stealing to feed their families. It is almost always people stealing because they are greedy and want what someone else has but don't want to work for it. These are people who consider themselves poor, but have more wealth than 80% of the rest of the world.
I have been in the class that the United States calls poor, and I have been in the class that the United States calls rich, and now am in the class that the United States calls middle class. When I was poor, I felt the same attitude that many poor do, that the rich were somehow just given their money and didn't deserve it, nor the things that came with money. I never acted to right this perceived wrong, but I did have the attitude. Then after working my way up to rich, I realized that I had worked hard for what I had, and when people stole from me, I resented what i perceived their attitude to be, which is the same one I had when I was poor, but now having worked hard for what I had (and lost) I understood that the rich are not someone to despise for their wealth. Then I became poor again, thanks to 9/11, and now have worked my way up to middle class. I feel I understand (certain members of) the poor's attitude toward the rich, but think it is wrong.

What's stopping them from doing something productive, such as planting some crops? People got along just fine for millenia before boats were even invented, just by building themselves mud huts and picking berries. Now, it's even easier, as we know how to plant crops and grow food for ourselves.

These pirates aren't struggling to survive; they're taking their ill-gotten money and living in luxury with it, buying SUVs of all things.

I wouldn't root for the pirates, they're just armed thieves, not liberation heroes.

But what is causing piracy is extreme poverty and a shattered Somalia. Before reaching for the gun think how this situation can be changed.

Fighting poverty would be a lot cheaper and better for everyone than fighting its causes. You can get all the sophisticated guns you want, if there's extreme poverty you'll never be safe. And I'm not only talking about Somalia. Look at your neighborhood.

But what is causing piracy is extreme poverty and a shattered Somalia. Before reaching for the gun think how this situation can be changed.

The last time we tried to intervene in that situation it didn't end [wikipedia.org] so well. If the Somalis want change I'd say that it's up to them to provide it. You can't impose freedom or change on a population that isn't willing to accept it.

If the Somalis want change I'd say that it's up to them to provide it.

Roger that. And the first way to promote change in productive directions is to stop them from thinking that "taking a ship's crew hostage for millions of dollars in ransom" will result in a change in anything but their body temperature.

These people aren't pirates because the see any "global inequality", they are pirates because they think they can make millions of dollars easily and face no consequences. It's no different than any criminal activity, white collar or blue.

I think I now know remotely how a black guy must have felt back in the fifties, when the roles were reversed. But in 2009, all things Whitey does or ever did are considered incredible atrocities while everyone else gets a guilt-free genocide every now and then.

If you really believe that white in 2009 = black in 1950, then I can only conclude that your grasp of American history, as a German, is about as good as the average American's grasp of German history.

okay, let's look at my neighborhood (or the immediate surrounding areas). a lot of people have it really rough and there is a lot of poverty. but if you kick down my door i am not stopping to think about how rough you have it or how hungry your kids are. if you threaten someone with violence expect a reaction in kind. i won't shoot first, but i will if you threaten me. it's called self-defense and if you don't like it, don't go around attacking people on the high seas or in my front room.

Personally I am rooting for the pirates maybe they can drive up the cost of the goods being transported making more local or regional options viable in areas of commerce and energy supply.

Forget your anti retard pills today? If you're rooting for them, you have to realize that most of the shipping there goes INTO Africa. They would be raising the price of aid to areas where local and regional options are insufficient. The pirates are shooting their own region in the foot for their own profit... it helps no-one. I say nothing works better against pirates than hot lead.

I doubt the USA would allow Chinese container ships with cannons, and sailors well-armed with lethal weapons to enter US ports.

They don't need cannons. Rifles and pistols would probably suffice. And why would the USA care if Chinese container ships had small arms aboard ship, as long as those small arms didn't come ashore? A rifle in a weapons locker aboard ship isn't a threat to anyone.

I doubt the USA would allow Chinese container ships with cannons, and sailors well-armed with lethal weapons to enter US ports.

They don't need cannons. Rifles and pistols would probably suffice. And why would the USA care if Chinese container ships had small arms aboard ship, as long as those small arms didn't come ashore? A rifle in a weapons locker aboard ship isn't a threat to anyone.

The problem with that (and merc's or proper military being stationed aboard ship) is that ports will not allow a ship t

Lever back on the testosterone, pal. If the movie Aliens taught us anything, it's that sheer rough-n-ready manpower is not always the answer.

Marines cost to feed and shelter. They take up space that could otherwise be used for crew and cargo. They cost to train. They want to be paid all the time they're on guard. They're not easily replicated or rapidly distributed for a high-demand world. And they're still fragile meatsacks, whatever their will to fight might be.

Does not make sense. Pirates aren't movie aliens and Marines(TM) are known to work quite effectively against them.
Marines cost to feed and shelter anywhere you put them so you might as well assign them to ships that are likely to be boarded and let them get some work in. Two squads of Marines do not take up very much space at all (particularly in respect to the capacity of these cargo ships). Their presence would have a negligible effect on crew and cargo. They do cost to train but that money is again going to be spent anyway no matter where they are stationed. They don't get paid all the time that they are on guard (assuming we are talking about United States Marines). They draw a monthly paycheck whether they are on guard duty off the coast of Somalia or stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else. We have plenty of them, they are easily replicated to a point, and can be rapidly sent wherever they're needed.
Slippery foam covered pirates wash off and come back to try again. Dead floating in the water until the sharks get there pirates are no longer a threat.

Two?!? One squad of US Marines is a heavily armed element; 8 or 9 M16s or M4s, a couple of grenade launchers, an M240 or M249 MG, and a bunch of AT4s (replacements for the old LAW rocket). More than enough to deal with the level of threat we're seeing in Somali waters. If the pirates want to rachet up, at least you'd have a force in place to delay them long enough to bring up the Navy.

You know, cops also are paid no matter where they are stationed, so why not put a trained cop in every car on the road?

I'm pretty sure if one freeway accoutns for most of the crime in their jurisdiction, the police will figure out a way to assign their forces there. There are only so many merchant vessels going around the East coast of Africa at any given time. I think the limitations probably have more to do with our forces being so heavily committed on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You don't need a cop in the USA since most places you go a private citizen can legally have a gun in their car for self defense. Of course the vast majority don't because being kidnapped and help for ransom isn't high on the threat list here.

If the movie Aliens taught us anything, it's that sheer rough-n-ready manpower is not always the answer.

Remind us of the lessons from a work of FICTION next time you get taken hostage and half your traveling
companions (including friends and possibly family) get killed.

Lever back on the testosterone, pal.

You carry a squirt gun, I'll take a fully-armed crew carrying M-16s.

I have to second the GP, I really can't believe anyone even wants to consider non-lethal means ("Anything
but guns?" What sort of bleeding heart came up with that line of feelgood BS?) to deal with armed killers on the
high seas. These people board mostly-defenseless ships and kill people, loot the cargo, and take the "important" people
for ransom. Just fucking kill them. No "alternatives" necessary.

As an aside, these clowns only get away with this because they attack highly-multinational ships, crews, and cargos,
so no particular country feels a need to respond. When they do go after, say, a mostly-American (or even mostly-French,
recently) ship, we end up with living crew and a few less pirates. Good riddance.

All the testosterone and gung-ho aside, how about not giving them a reason to pirate? It seems that nobody here realizes that the Somali pirates are doing what they do because other nations illegal fishing (worth an estimated 300 million) in the region have depleted [freerepublic.com] their fish stocks while the UN turned a blind eye. To add insult to injury, there's been some toxic waste dumping off the coast.

That little bit of rationalization only goes so far. The fishing issue is why some people (fisherman who lost their livelihoods) turned to piracy but it's largely driven by a profit motive now. They've realized that they can extort money out of shipowners and have no reason to stop doing so as long as the reward is greater than the risk.

are doing what they do because they system has failed them and they see piracy as the most feasible method to force change.

How is piracy going to force charge in Solomia when the warlords that have ruined that country are the ones sheltering the pirates and taking a cut of the money they steal?

Oh spare us the BS. The pirates aren't hijacking fishing vessels or garbage barges to police their waters. They're hijacking cargo ships and ransoming them. They're doing it 100% for greed, which is motivated by a lack of consequences (little rule of law there) and lack of alternatives (crap economy there).

When they stop taking tankers and start taking fishing boats and garbage barges, you can speak in their defense. Until then, STFU.

Although I feel like I shouldn't respond to such a blatant troll, since your post was modded up I have no choice but to respond here. (Since nobody else has gotten it right so far)

Calling the GP post BS is just plain wrong. Toxic waste was dumped in their waters, this is a fact [timesonline.co.uk]. In addition, illegal fishing of their waters is a fact [google.com]. Your response for the GP to "STFU" is simply uncalled for.

However, none of these facts justifies kidnapping and ransoming people who had nothing to do with those crimes. Man

If they attacked waste barges and fishing vessels (there are fishing vessels to attack in the massive area they commit piracy in) they MIGHT attract the attention of the UN who would say "look, they are doing it to stop the dumping. This makes sense." and they MIGHT get help. However, using your issues as an excuse for being a warlord/waterlord is bullshit. Its a fact - Crime is illegal, and they know it. They do it for money, not for ideals. Do you think Somalis give a shit about the environment? Their own

That is an extremely good point, however it may unfortunately be too late to stop the piracy by just improving economic/environmental conditions alone. From my limited understanding of the issue, there are many organized groups of pirates now, most with a hierarchal leadership structure. Those at the top are probably doing considerably better for themselves than what they did as fishermen (or whatever they did before). And if it's like most other organized crime, the leaders will go to great lengths to e

There is no stable government in Somalia either. The lack of social system, education and so forth has in fact failed not only the pirates by their society as a whole. This is not the reason for the rampant piracy, especially when dealing with ships that are brining in food supplies.

This is good old fashioned greed, until recently it has been pretty much a win-win for the pirates. They were seldom if ever confronted and the return on investment was massive. With those conditions in place it created an environment similar to what we had with Privateering.

They claim to care about the over-fishing, the illegal dumping and so forth, but it boils down to greed. Especially when you see that it is not fishing vessels that are hit, but supply tankers with big fat cargos worth millions.

If they were there as social activists, they would be boarding vessels that actually created their problems and keeping them on their shores as a political statement. Not claiming million dollar bounties and going after the next ripe and defenceless target.

That's why they are so vocal about recent warship involvement. Their goose is cooked if world navies crack down.

That being said, I would love to be on the first ship equipped with anti-piracy non-lethal technologies.

I wouldn't want to be near such a ship. The pirates aren't limiting themselves to 'non-lethal technologies'. What are you going to do when they respond to your water cannon with an RPG? Sending people armed with 'non-lethal weapons' up against those armed with lethal ones seems pretty stupid to me.

So once they get their huge ransoms and can feed their family, why do they still pirate? I have no doubt these people have been screwed, and that should stop. But there is still more to it than just what you are saying. Pirating is more profitable than fishing. Why would they go back?

I am sort of curious why this sort of a solution is not often suggested.

It has been said that the reason crewmen are not armed is that they are not trained, and that it is illegal to have armed crewmen at many major port cities where these ships are headed.

It has also been said that stationing mercenaries or marines on board all ships all the time is prohibitively expensive, and possibly has the same legal problems.

But the area in which these problems are occurring seems to be relatively small, compared to the entire trip these ships are taking. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to drop off 10-15 marines/mercenaries at a point before they get close enough for pirates to be a threat, and pick them up on the other side. You'd think that it would be getting cheaper than just buying insurance on the cargo pretty soon.

Or, for as bad as the news makes it seem, go back to the old World War II convoy system. If the gulf is too big to have warships patrolling the entire thing, have a convoy leaving twice a day with a bunch of tankers and 1-2 warships covering it.

The fact that these steps have not been taken must mean that the chances of any one ship being taken are still small enough that most companies can afford to take the risk.

"We're getting boarded... must not have sprayed the pirate repellent last night..."

Well, see, as you're sailing around there's always a probability that you'll have a random encounter. At low levels the pirate encounters can be a good way to gain experience points and loot - but at higher levels they're not worth the hassle, so you'll usually want to just avoid 'em. That's where pirate repellent comes in.

You know, contrary to the liberal hype, firearms are NOT that difficult to use properly. US Army basic training includes an grand total of three weeks basic rifle marksmanship. Frankly, I could take a willing subject and teach them the basics in an afternoon. Every ship should have some crewmen cross trained in firearms usage. Weapons lockers should be on each ship, with locks and seals when in port. If a port city or country refused to allow such secured firearms, ships would simply no longer stop there. That would last, oh, a day before they changed their minds.

A firearm is simply a tool. The function of a hammer is to drive a nail. The function of a rifle is to send a projectile down range at a high rate of speed. Or, as the SEAL's recently showed, to rapidly empty the cranial cavities of pirates.

Firearms are not "evil", no more than a hammer is "evil". A hammer, properly handled, can drive a nail, or crack a skull. A rifle, properly handled, can do the same.

That sir, is the point of the National Hammer Association. To defend Hammers from being banned because of the nail-driving exploits of a "tiny minority" who use their rifles inappropriately as striking tools.

No amount of training can prepare you to kill someone. The prospect of THEM killing YOU is a fairly effective motivator though......

Actually, this is not true at all. Most people have to be trained to kill. For the early part of the century, in the world wars, it turns out that a huge problem for the American Army was that there were a lot soldiers that simply did not shoot at the enemy because they did not want to kill people. This actually happened even when soldiers were under fire themselves. It tur

Why would you give a poorly trained sailor a gun, when it takes a few hours to train him to use it? I have fired less than 200 rounds from my AR-15 (the semi-auto version of the M-16) and I can make a head shot at 300 yards under stress (with optics), or a torso shot at 100 yards under stress (with iron sights).

A one or two week training course in weapon skills and combat tactics (which are at least as important as the weapon skills), would give the sailors a huge advantage over the untrained pirates.

Typical M-16 magazines hold 30 rounds. A trained user should be able to get at least five kills from that magazine, and reloading takes only a few seconds. After the first or second death, the pirates would probably flee.

Small arms are far more effective than the mad-scientist weapons mentioned, because they are much cheaper, far more reliable, easier to use, and have a deterrence factor: pirates will avoid ships they think involve a high risk of death, and dead (or wounded and captured) pirates don't get to raid again. Also, unlike the fixed position water cannons and sound cannons, small arms can be used more easily once the pirates have boarded. If the water cannon was a better weapon than a rifle, then military ships and land units (which, unlike commercial ships, do not have legal restrictions on what weapons they employ) would use them instead of rifles.

My suggestion would be having a few designated marksmen (the best shooters on the ship) with a semi-auto.308 with a good scope for long range engagements. If they can hit one or two pirates before they board, the pirates will probably turn around. The rest of the firearms-trained crew should have something like UMP-45 submachine guns, which are a much better choice in close quarters. Of course all of these weapons should be locked up (unless they have an armed patrol), until a threat is discovered. With modern detection equipment, they should have plenty of time to muster and equip themselves.

Note: M-16s, like most modern firearms, use magazines not clips. A clip is a device that grips the back of the rounds and leaves most of the round exposed. A magazine is an enclosed box with a spring at the bottom for self feeding.

I'm not going out there to the Gulf of Aden unless I got one of these [wikipedia.org] at a minimum, preferably something more long the lines of this [wikipedia.org]. An M16 isn't bad though but I might need more oomph....

The op-ed page of the local fishwrap had another suggestion; Every US-flagged merchant ship should have a Phalanx gun [fas.org] with a Navy operator. When the pirate ship approaches, the navy man turns it into wood chips and fish chum in a few seconds. Bingo, no more pirate problem.

The M-16 is a great idea. Deadly force met with deadly force is the only answer that is likely to work.

But, I have to say that I am constantly amazed at the presumption of those who ban deadly force. Sheltered pussies sitting in a sheltered land, defended by armed men thousands of miles away, have the gall to prohibit weapons for the men who actually go into harms way.

People, these are armed robbers we are talking about. For whatever reason, they have decided to TAKE valuable items from innocent men who are only trying to make a living. Merchant mariners put their lives at risk to deliver the goods, only to have armed robbers come aboard, shove weapons in their faces, and demand their livelihoods from them.

Philosophers have the luxury of sitting at thier computers, justifying the pirates conduct, and insisting that the pirate's rights be upheld.

Sailors whose lives are at risk don't have that luxury.

Deadly force, however applied, must be used. There are multiple choices, after all.

Arm the merchant mariners. If ports don't want armed mariners, either avoid those ports, or have the weapons locked up while in port. No big deal.

Take on a squad or two of mercenaries. Trained killers, determined to protect the ship. Here we have no problems with poorly trained men whose marksmanship sucks.

Convoys. No ship transits the Gulf Monday thru Thursday. On Friday, one full fledged convoy transits southbound, and another transits northbound. The rest of the week, the Naval pirate killers patrol far and wide, searching for pirates to kill.

I repeat - I am simply amazed that so many people, around the world, can sit on their asses and pretend to know what life at sea is like, pretend to know how to deal with pirates, and they've never walked aboard a fucking SHIP!!

Morons. These are the same people who whine and cry because there are never enough cops to protect them, so when a bad guy comes along, they just curl up and die for the nice bad man.

I wouldn't sail anywhere without a weapon. I wouldn't even sail up the Mississippi river, let alone the Gulf of Aden without a weapon.

Let's get over this abhorrence we have for deadly force. If someone is trying to rob, rape, or kill you, the scum needs to be put down.

Is it more humane to flood those little pirate boats and let the pirates drown then just shooting them in the head?

Bettery yet, why not take x number of ships, create a convoy that is protected by x number of war ships from different nations and run them through? Each nation gets it's chance to be the flag ship so that eveyone gets the credit. .

It worked good enough in WWII and would work now, unless the pirates get smart and buy a bunch of used U-Boats. But then sinking their loot would kind of defeat the purpose wouldn't it?

You start killing pirates and making it really risky to be a pirate and there won't be any more pirates willing to take the risk. Kinda like the old saying, "There are old pirates and there are bold pirates, but there are no old bold pirates".

Is it more humane to flood those little pirate boats and let the pirates drown then just shooting them in the head?

Pirates have access to the same life preserver technology the rest of us do — better than most, because they can keep the best of what they have stolen. Ditto for life rafts.

Personally, I could give one tenth of one shit what happens to any pirate, but it would probably be too much effort. If I'm on the ocean and you announce (or display) intent to board my ship by force, and I have a 20mm cannon, I'm going to fucking open up and turn your shit into sawdust.

The ships do not want to carry fire arms not because they don't want to kill the pirates. Carrying fire arms is a safety issue and a legal issue. Some countries would not let a ship armed with machines into their ports. Guns and ammo are dangerous in a fire. And they would attract vandals and thieves who want to steal the guns and ammo. So it is to protect the ship and its crew, they don't want to carry a gun. If they can kill the pirates without guns, they would do so. It is not a question of trying to be humane to the pirates, just sensible precautions to protect the crew.

Given that said gun is designed for extremely low penetration(skin surface only) and microwaves tend to interact with water, I'd be less than wholly surprised if taking a quick seawater dip, and wearing long sleeves, would be enough to allow you to approach and fire on the emitter.

I could certainly be wrong(and I'd hope, though not necessarily expect, that Raytheon would test something like that before the started trying to sell them); but the world is full of high-tech wizbangs that can be defeated by t

To be fair, ninjas and special operations/forces are pretty much the same thing. Ninjas were pretty much feudal Japan's special forces. Their legendary superhuman abilities and magical powers are merely the results of their skill and efficiency. The incredible feats performed by the Navy SEALs and other special forces, while not as easily attributed to magical powers, their feats are often considered superhuman in that the average person could never perform the kinds of things SEALs can.

Piracy is a crime and should be treated as such. If there's a rash of break-ins in your hometown you don't recommend that every home owner goes out and buys a gun, you track down the criminals responsible and put them to justice.

It's well known that the pirates are getting inside information on ship locations and cargoes from associates in Europe. Feed a false tip into the system and arrest the pirates that come calling. Don't try to arm civilians to fight off what could be a relatively well trained and well armed fighting force, you'll just piss of the criminals and they'll be that much more likely to start killing people.

Piracy is a crime and should be treated as such. If there's a rash of break-ins in your hometown you don't recommend that every home owner goes out and buys a gun, you track down the criminals responsible and put them to justice

Actually, I would recommend that every home owner buy a gun. If you shoot the guys breaking in, they won't do it again.

The fact of the matter is, pirates are NOT criminals. They are pirates. They are completely outside the law and anyone has a right to kill a pirate on the high seas. That was what worked 200 years ago, and its only because the surrenderists are in charge that piracy and lawlessness have made a comeback.

I'm sick of hearing about how people should trust their government for safety, when it won't do anything to guarantee it.

Piracy is a crime and should be treated as such. If there's a rash of break-ins in your hometown you don't recommend that every home owner goes out and buys a gun,

You may not, but I would. Especially if I had reason to believe that the local police were getting a kickback from those breaking in. In this case we have reason to believe that what passes for a government in Somalia is getting at least a kickback (if not sponsoring) the pirates.

How about we reinstate the time honored tradition of privateering? Every privateer gets a representative from a multi-national body of privateer regulators. Kill pirates, take their shit, take their ships. No more pirates.

Do you think the pirates doing the pirating have anything worth taking?

There is real money involved, and tracing it might well end up leading to some interesting places; but they are all on shore(as with anything else, management is the place to be when it comes to crime). The seaborne component is a bunch of scrawny kids, with cheap eastern block crap and outboard motors. I'd be shocked if you could cover the gas money, much less merc wages, off the proceeds of a pirate hunt.

I thought the whole idea of not arming crews was to prevent possible death to the crews. Do these people think that only applies to GUNS, and not other forms of arms? The pirates are armed with guns, RPGs and the like, not fucking water pistols. They do not have a "stun" setting. Does anyone in their right mind think the pirates, after getting a ship flooded or tasered aren't going to actually use the weapons THEY have? Do they expect the pirates to say "Gosh, you fought fair and humanely. We'll just ignore all that extra effort, pain and discomfort."

Wrong.

How about just adding armed and trained guards to the ships? Maybe armed and trained escort ships? Q-boats? A Naval destroyer sitting in the main bay, shelling their HQ?

Newsweek just had an article on why killing pirates might be a bad idea. Basically, the pirates have a "code" that they live by which includes treating their hostages well. Their piracy is pretty much an economic transaction. Starting to shoot pirates might make them rethink how they treat their hostages.

Not that I agree with their assessment, but it's an interesting idea that escalating an economic situation to one of life or death might have adverse effects on the innocents involved.

I dunno - I think you need to look at the incentives involved. These pirates are businessmen - not crusaders. They do it to make money. If they know they aren't going to make money they'll stop doing it.

I once heard somebody argue that when a plane is hijacked that the military should just shoot it down with hostages and terrorists alike perishing. Of course that sounds dumb, until you realize that you've eliminated any negotiating power the terrorists might obtain from holding hostages. A saner approach would be to simply not sincerely negotiate at all and always mount military responses if the terrorists don't surrender after a reasonable period of time.

Remember, terrorism isn't about money, it's about instilling fear in people, i.e. terrorizing. So if you start shooting down every hijacked plane, what actually happens, is that the terrorists will use their readily available supply of martyrs to continuously hijack airplanes with no other intent than getting shot down. Then you either keep your word, shoot the planes and the people within, and soon nobody in their right mind will ever board a plane again (public uproar notwithstanding), or you don't shoot the planes and start negotiating with the terrorists.

Due to activities of privateers and pirates in the past, many nations have laws against armed merchant vessels being allowed in their harbors and/or waters. This is the reason the companies want devices that won't be considered weapons by these countries, Afterall, what good does it do to arm the vessel if it can't dock anywhere.

After you've caused some of the pirates to break their arms and legs on a newly frictionless surface, and made yet more of them bleed from the ears, perhaps deaf for life, they finally manage to board you.

For how long do you expect to survive?

Seriously, I'd cut our your eyes and lop off your ears out of spite at that point. And I'm not even a seafaring pirate.

Reminds me of the anti-rape condom that causes the would-be rapist immense pain. Good job, now he'll definitely kill you.

a lot of the commentary here has to do with the idea the crews should be armed

the rationale being that this is the best policy in civic life as well

well, crews are not armed, because when you give arms to a handful of guys in the middle of the ocean, interesting scenarios develop involving needless death. not even the majority of such scenarios having anything to do with pirates. hey, don't argue with me. this is official policy on the high seas for a reason

which is exactly why no one should have guns in civic life as well: why multiply the number of scenarios in which the outcome is death for the victims, nevermind the perpetrators

i'd actually like to see the common sense we have on the high seas apply to common sense in civic life: stop the proliferation of guns in civic life, which only results in thousands of needless deaths due top pointless escalation from random domestic situations, posturing teenagers, curious children, miscommunications, accidents, etc.

not that you will see gun proponents ever admit this. in their eyes, a gun is always and forever more used only according to the most virtuous of reasons, and the outcome is always good. even though reality and history and statistical fact proves otherwise, by orders of magnitude

but don't argue with me. argue with the wisdom of those who maintain ships on the high seas

as for what to do about the new pirate situation off of somalia that seems to challenge this wisdom: ships in convoys, chaperoned by warships, just world war i&ii in the north atlantic when german uboats were on the prowl. just like we deal with crime on land: with police, not with the arming of random yahoos on the street with dirty harry complexes

People who have no stake whatsoever, or who are impacted only in a very negligible way by this piracy, probably a mere two cents out of their big fat wallets, seem spoiling for a fight. Lots of cowboy swagger here...

Some things I'm wondering...

1. Is it the colour of their skin? Black versus white? Can't let the coloureds/ragheads/ win or get too uppity...?

2. Is it that the Somalis whupped their asses in Blackhawk Down and they're sore losers or holding a grudge?

3. Is it just the principle of the thing, law and order at all cost?

4. General ignorance and stupidity about the ways of the world, other countries and cultures, global situations, etc.

5. They didn't like Captain Jack in Pirates of the Carribean?

6. This is the new spectator sport, lots of opportunity for blood and gore to be had here, especially for a populace weaned on lifelong "us versus them" warfare on their televisions and wanting more (Iraq got old).

Actually, in their minds, it will make the pirates more willing to kill. After all, if people will potentially shooting at you, you're more likely to shoot first if someone looks funny. Frankly, I'm a fan of the convoy idea. Heck. One destroyer could protect a dozen commercial vessels, I'm sure.

Because many ports of call won't allow a ship with armed men on it to enter. Do you really think we would allow Long Beach to be full with a bunch of well armed container ships? Once you enter a countries waters, you have to play by their rules. And that typically means you can't go there armed. Being on a ship doesn't change that. If I can't buy a 50 cal, why should I let some foreign sailor into my port with one.

Perhaps then there is a market for firearms escrow aboard ships stationed just outside of a nation's territorial waters. You could leave port, arm yourself, sail wherever, and leave your guns behind before arriving in the next port.

In part because it's too expensive. You can't just start handing our guns to the ship crews, they don't have any training and some of them may not be legaly allowed to have guns (due to previous convictions etc) or they may not be trusted with guns by their own company. There would need to be specially trained people on board, something like air marshals. Note that the pirates are typically armed with RPGs and machine guns, so a single guy with a pistol wouldn't make much diff

I wouldn't at all be surprised if the real problem is that the average commercial sailor would say, "Hey, if I wanted to be in the military, I would've joined the military! I don't want to shoot guns OR be shot at, thank you very much!"

> I understand the liability issues involved in stocking guns on a non-military ship

Do you?

Do you really?

Because if you do, I'd like to here it.

Nobody has ever published a single believable argument against having a small secure locker of arms on a merchant ship. Further, this practice was common in all merchant fleets right up to and through the 40s.

Its not a liability issue at all. There is a far greater legal liability to the shipping companies for failure to protect their crews.

Some ports have regulations against on-board guns, BUT nearly all such ports that do have ways around them, such as advance declaration, locked cabinets etc.

No, the only argument presented against arms on merchant ships has nothing to do with liability, and often boils down to "starting an arms race" with the pirates, which is a ridiculous example of reaching and scare mongering.